nwn2fandomcom-20200214-history
NWN2Wiki talk:ProblemReports/21318
I think that the vandal here is ARHicks (whichever variant), who has removed useful information (e.g. that Yuan-Ti get the feat for free) and instead substituted rambling discussions about Turn Undead, which do not belong in Blind Fight. Hopefully he will now cease this behavior.--Thorsson 23:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC) I didn't touch the Yuan-Ti information. Names and information are located within the history. You can look at the history of the Blind fight and see that. Turn Undead was used as example as to why some classes don't need Blind Fight in certain servers. If you're going to insist example should be in articles I can pull up several articles that use examples to get their point across. Please, stop acting like a child over the internet. -- ARHicks00 History section shows I had nothing to do with the changes... http://nwn2.wikia.com/index.php?title=Blind_Fight&action=history Just look at the edit Revision as of 18:34, 23 April 2009 and the previous entry. I think that should make it obvious who is telling the truth. As far as examples are concerned I'm all for them. But a rambling discussion about Turning, or using spells against, Wraiths has no place in the entry about Blind Fight.--Thorsson 23:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC) I saw the previous entries on undo, but none of them show me erasing the sentence. Example why a paladin doesn't need fight on a undead server is a perfect why you don't need Blind Fight for every class. (A sentence, which you kept in.) I didn't change it back because the point has been made, but it is not an example of defacing an article. -- ARHicks00 There's just too many things wrong with that statement. How useful is the above as an example of Blind Fight? Answer, not at all. Now if Blind Fight was a bad feat that you could do without in most circumstances, because Turn Undead was a better Feat, then that example might have point under Blind Fight - to say don't take it. As it is, it takes a particular class and says that in a particular circumstance you can get away without it. That is not a good example of anything. It's not that it's incorrect, it's simply that it has no place in this article. The only place it could have any relevance is under 'Paladin'. But the fact that Paladins can Turn Undead will already be mentioned there. That this includes concealed Undead is hardly worthy of an additional section. I realise that you will never understand the point, but I feel that I have to try once.--Thorsson 00:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Are you sure you're English? I didn't understand the first three four sentences. Moreover, it's opinion about how the example was executed as oppose to the importance of it. The fifth sentence nails it on the head and it goes with the statement I made "depending on your class, module and server." Each sentence is connected and verifying your statement through examples give people an idea when they should take the ability and why. 6th sentence incorrect considering Clerics and Blackguards can turn undead too. The 7th additional and sentence shows you did not understand what you read and you didn't read the paragraph in full. I mentioned both spellcasting AND turn undead. I explained that spellcasting and turn undead allows for such classes as the Cleric, Paladin and Wizard to attack conceal opponents in certain circumstances. The argument against undead in reference to concealment and blindfight was to show anyone read why Blind Fight would not be need in those circumstances. The fact you attack the turn undead argument and nothing else proves my point. From Syylk: ARHicks was so quick to delete anything I offered in the article or discussion thread that he seems not to have noticed that he was deleting good information. Yes, ARHicks, I did put the note in there about Yuan-ti and RDDs getting blindfight for free and you deleted it. The log that Thorsson points to shows it clearly. As a side note I am horrified that ARHicks seems to feel he can censor information that he doesn't like on a public wiki discussion thread. Anyway, I've had enough of all this nonsense. Looks like ARHicks is going to go away and quit posting nonsense so I'm signing off too.